sc_transactions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing with filters but does not describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. The existence of an output schema mitigates some need, but key behavioral traits like the cursor-based pagination are not mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and avoids wordiness. It is appropriately brief for the tool's simple purpose, though it omits important param details. Structure is good but content is thin.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description needs to be more complete. It only lists high-level use cases and does not explain pagination, filter types, or parameter interactions. The output schema exists but the description itself is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without external knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters (isin, cursor, to_time, from_time, page_size, type_filter, portfolio_id) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only says 'optional filters' without explaining any parameter's meaning, format, or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent without critical parameter guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'Scalable Capital broker transactions with optional filters'. It distinguishes from siblings like sc_transaction (singular) and sc_overnight_transactions by implication, but does not explicitly differentiate. The verb+resource is specific and useful.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides three use-case examples: reconciliation, tax analysis, and trade history review. This implies when to use the tool, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or comparison to sibling tools like sc_transaction for a single record or sc_overnight_transactions for overnight data. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.